3 ms·

That's like people who say, "I don't have anything to hide, I've done nothing wrong." to which I reply, "Ok. Take your clothes off right now. Remove the curta

That's like people who say, "I don't have anything to hide, I've done nothing wrong." to which I reply, "Ok. Take your clothes off right now. Remove the curtains from your bedroom window and the door off of your bathroom." The look on their face is that of incredulity. People have an expectation of privacy and need the ability to hide perfectly benign things in their lives. Most importantly, they should have the freedom to do so, even with electronic devices where they're conducting their lives in an ever increasing manner. Shalev Hulio's argument is so bad that it actually makes me trust his company even less than I did before.

syshum 5y ago
Almost 10 years go, Moxie Marlinspike published a great rebuttal to the "If you have nothing to hide" and "if your not a criminal" defenses of these kind of systems. Still one of the better rebuttals https://www.wired.com/2013/06/why-i-have-nothing-to-hide-is-the-wrong-way-to-think-about-surveillance/ https://www.wired.com/2013/06/why-i-have-nothing-to-hide-is-...
Adamantisa 5y ago
I'm cold. I'd wake up with sunlight. It's unsightly.
- orwin 5y ago
  Let your phone number and your address here then.
  - Adamantisa 5y ago
    I wouldn't do that to avoid prank calls or harassing, not due to privacy.
    - diggernet 5y ago
      > "I wouldn't do that [give up my privacy] to avoid prank calls or harassing, not due to privacy." Do you see how contradictory that is? It is precisely due to privacy. You value your privacy, in order to avoid those things.
JohnFen 5y ago
Not to mention that since he says the NSO doesn't have anything to do with how their system is used, he can't possibly assure anyone that if they aren't a criminal then they have nothing to fear. The amount of obvious deception and doubletalk coming from them goes a long way to confirming that the NSO are not good guys.
pwdisswordfish8 5y ago
Another simple test is to ask them to put their phone number somewhere public. The fact that people aren't even comfortable doing that which was considered normal and expected 25 years ago really destroys the credibility of the "nothing to hide" folks' arguments.
xwolfi 5y ago
I have a lot of things to hide from criminals and little to hide from the police. I fear your metaphor is a fallacy... If people dont want to be naked in public it s because they expect onlookers to abuse of their image to exploit it, there s an argument to say that the police isn't at risk of doing so. I'm not saying you re wrong in principle, just that your easy fallacy is just that.
- teachrdan 5y ago
  It's reasonable to expect the police not to abuse nude photos of you. But they've done so time and again: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/10/cops-stealing-nude-photos-should-prompt-a-federal-investigation/381995/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/10/cops-st... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/08/us/lauren-mccluskey-utah-lawsuit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/08/us/lauren-mccluskey-utah-...
- mlnj 5y ago
  I don't want want anyone to know what I had for dinner last night. It doesn't mean it was something illegal or even out of the ordinary. It is just not anybody's business to know that.
- l33t2328 5y ago
  > I have a lot of things to hide from criminals and little to hide from the police I fear your assumption that these groups are disjoint is a fallacy.

syshum 5y ago

Almost 10 years go, Moxie Marlinspike published a great rebuttal to the "If you have nothing to hide" and "if your not a criminal" defenses of these kind of systems. Still one of the better rebuttals https://www.wired.com/2013/06/why-i-have-nothing-to-hide-is-the-wrong-way-to-think-about-surveillance/ https://www.wired.com/2013/06/why-i-have-nothing-to-hide-is-...

Adamantisa 5y ago

I'm cold. I'd wake up with sunlight. It's unsightly.

orwin 5y ago
Let your phone number and your address here then.
- Adamantisa 5y ago
  I wouldn't do that to avoid prank calls or harassing, not due to privacy.
  - diggernet 5y ago
    > "I wouldn't do that [give up my privacy] to avoid prank calls or harassing, not due to privacy." Do you see how contradictory that is? It is precisely due to privacy. You value your privacy, in order to avoid those things.

JohnFen 5y ago

Not to mention that since he says the NSO doesn't have anything to do with how their system is used, he can't possibly assure anyone that if they aren't a criminal then they have nothing to fear. The amount of obvious deception and doubletalk coming from them goes a long way to confirming that the NSO are not good guys.

pwdisswordfish8 5y ago

Another simple test is to ask them to put their phone number somewhere public. The fact that people aren't even comfortable doing that which was considered normal and expected 25 years ago really destroys the credibility of the "nothing to hide" folks' arguments.

xwolfi 5y ago

I have a lot of things to hide from criminals and little to hide from the police. I fear your metaphor is a fallacy... If people dont want to be naked in public it s because they expect onlookers to abuse of their image to exploit it, there s an argument to say that the police isn't at risk of doing so. I'm not saying you re wrong in principle, just that your easy fallacy is just that.

teachrdan 5y ago
It's reasonable to expect the police not to abuse nude photos of you. But they've done so time and again: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/10/cops-stealing-nude-photos-should-prompt-a-federal-investigation/381995/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/10/cops-st... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/08/us/lauren-mccluskey-utah-lawsuit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/08/us/lauren-mccluskey-utah-...
mlnj 5y ago
I don't want want anyone to know what I had for dinner last night. It doesn't mean it was something illegal or even out of the ordinary. It is just not anybody's business to know that.
l33t2328 5y ago
> I have a lot of things to hide from criminals and little to hide from the police I fear your assumption that these groups are disjoint is a fallacy.